You want to see something SAD!?!?!?

6 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
I spoke here earlier about how a lot of smoke detectors now use a radioactive source that is potentially DEADLY! I don't know how new the technology is, but it is likely pretty new.

Well, I mused about ANOTHER way of detecting smoke, etc... It is 100% safe, NO RADIATION, etc... Again, I don't know how old it is, but it was around over 50 years ago, and guess who identified the basic theories behind it........ A guy by the name of Thomas Alva Edison! YEP, THAT guy! The guy that came up with the viable incandescent light, and tube.

GUESS WHICH ONE FAILS to save people! GUESS which one DOESN'T fail!

Aw what the hell. The copy buffer DIDN'T have the link. Anyway, they did a test, and found out that photoelectric detectors were better at detecting smouldering smoke before a person would be dead or simply unable to get out. The more common radioactive based ionization detectors took 37 minutes or more, which was over twice as long. If a person were still alive, they may find it hard to navigate to outside of the room..

Steve
  • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
    Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

    I spoke here earlier about how a lot of smoke detectors now use a radioactive source that is potentially DEADLY! I don't know how new the technology is, but it is likely pretty new.

    Well, I mused about ANOTHER way of detecting smoke, etc... It is 100% safe, NO RADIATION, etc... Again, I don't know how old it is, but it was around over 50 years ago, and guess who identified the basic theories behind it........ A guy by the name of Thomas Alva Edison! YEP, THAT guy! The guy that came up with the viable incandescent light, and tube.

    GUESS WHICH ONE FAILS to save people! GUESS which one DOESN'T fail!

    Aw what the hell. The copy buffer DIDN'T have the link. Anyway, they did a test, and found out that photoelectric detectors were better at detecting smouldering smoke before a person would be dead or simply unable to get out. The more common radioactive based ionization detectors took 37 minutes or more, which was over twice as long. If a person were still alive, they may find it hard to navigate to outside of the room..

    Steve

    I worked over 25 years in a manufacturing environment. All the smoke detectors I have personally seen in use are of the photoelectric type.

    Must be a reason...
    Signature

    Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9973534].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author butters
    i wounder how many people have died from a smoke detector
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9973550].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
      Originally Posted by butters View Post

      i wounder how many people have died from a smoke detector
      If it fell off the wall and hit you on the head in the right place it might.
      Signature

      Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9973562].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author butters
        Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

        If it fell off the wall and hit you on the head in the right place it might.
        Good point!! I'm buying a little one so I only get a head ache!
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9973569].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    OK, HERE is an article that explains what I am talking about:

    Photoelectric vs Ionization Smoke Alarms - Deadly Differences

    It says, in part:

    In tests, ionization alarms will typically respond about 30 to 90 seconds faster to “fast-flame” fires than photoelectric smoke alarms. However, in smoldering fires ionization alarms respond an average of 15 to 50 minutes slower than photoelectric alarms. Several studies indicate that they will outright fail to activate up to 20-25% of the time. The vast majority of residential fire fatalities are due to smoke inhalation, not from the actual flames and almost two-thirds of fire fatalities occur at night while we sleep.
    In other words, if you happen to be in a ROOM with a QUICK BURNING fire, an ionizing alarm might save you, MAYBE! In almost any other circumstance, a photoelectric is FAR more likely to save you. If it is a fast burning fire, elsewhere in the house, the PE one will likely go off in time to save you. If it is like what "The vast majority of residential fire fatalities are due" to, the PE one is likely to save you, and you will be a DEAD DUCK with the ionizing type!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9973597].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Doug
    I remember reading the included manufacturers warranty literature in a certain common brand of smoke detectors. Right there in print the manufacturer stated their smoke detector failed in 30% of fires...

    Let this be your first alert things are not always ideal.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9977244].message }}

Trending Topics